Saravana Muthukrishnan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Peraiyur
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Saravana Muthukrishnan
...Petitioner/Accused
Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station Madurai.
(Crime No. 101 of 2026 )
...Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Althaf Sherif for M/s.Ajmal Associates Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubramanian Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 101 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
1/7
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 101 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a practicing advocate and had worked as President of Puliyampatti Panchayat Board from 06.01.2020 to 05.01.2025 and A1 to A3 were working at Revenue Department. After the tenure period, when the defacto complainant approached the accused in respect of payment of goods purchased from Vishnu Priya Electricals, they refused to pay. In this regard, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the higher officials and issued a legal notice. The accused persons, to reckon vengences, misused the head of the legal notice issued by the defacto complainant, as if the defacto complainant lodged complaint against two Revenue officials. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2/7
petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prayed to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for State of TN (Crl.Side) would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(4) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No. 101 of 2026. He would further submit that the petitioner has no previous case. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the offences are grave in nature and hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions made on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and considering the facts that there is a dispute between the former President and present 3/7
President of concerned Panchayat and there is no specific overt-act against the petitioner and entire allegation is against A1 and the petitioner has no previous case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions: [a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif - cum- Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of four weeks, and thereafter as and when required for the interrogation.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of 4/7
similar nature.
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
(P D B J) 18.06.2026 apd 5/7
To 1.The District Munsif - cum- Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur, 2.The Inspector of Police, Peraiyur Police Station Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
P. DHANABAL, J apd
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No. 11477 of 2026 Date : 18.06.2026 7/7